Re:Tradeoffs is in life.
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
Just one additional thing to add, which many/. readers will find fascinating.
In the 1980s, BMW (and everyone else) was using turbo-charged engines in their Formula One cars. For those who are not familiar with it, F1 is the be-all and end-all of racing technology. BMW's engines were making around 1500HP (out of only 1.5liters) in qualifying trim. That's pretty impressive, but do you know what is even more impressive? The engine blocks that BMW was using were taken directly off the production line and were used, unmodifed. Equipped in a production car, those engines using those blocks were producing under 100HP.
So, let's take your life equation and apply it to this. With a 1400% increase in output, that would mean the expected engine life is (1/15)^3, or.02% of the "sissy version's" life. As the record shows, the engines lasted a heck of a lot longer than that.
Please, shut the fuck up. I'm tired of snide little remarks from anonymous faggots on this site whose sole purpose in life should be wiping the shit off my ass because they have no better reason for being alive than to act like little cocksuckers.
John, you present a convincing argument. I thought I could poke holes in it, or at least maybe find some obscure example which did not seem to fit, but after consulting my various engineering texts and skimming a couple of the SAE papers I've written, I came up empty handed. Congratulations on a job well done.
Re:Actually, that article is very wrong
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
Actually, John, while you are not completely wrong you are indeed very close.
What my particular chip does is run more boost, more timing, and squirt more fuel. It does not increase the wastegate pressure relief - it controls it completely. What does this complete control do for me, the driver? As a start, it improves throttle response, because when I floor the gas, it is best to leave the wastegate open momentarily and then flutter it, before holding it closed.
I could get into the technical details of what increasing the timing and fuel does, but that is outside of what most/.ers cant to read. Suffice it to say that as a result of running more advanced spark timing I must now run at least 91octane fuel.
The question on everyone else's mind is probably: Why did Audi not tune the car like this from the factory? The obvious answer is because of things like the fact that I now must run 91 octane fuel. The average driver does some really really horrible things to his car, and as a result, most manufacturers "dumb down" their cars to prevent failures due to this. That is the primary reason. A second reason is that the car, with the base-level engine and a $300 upgrade, is now significantly faster than the model with the $4000 more expensive engine. The rest of the reasons are primarily to do with protecting the car from your run of the mill idiot, and are outside the scope of the average/.ers interest.
As to your claim of my killing my torque band, that, too, is baseless and incorrect. If you wish to be 0wnt, and I mean "caught with your pants down and your head all the way up your hoo-hoo 0wnt," direct me to a free hot-linkable image host and I will post the dyno charts.
Re:Tradeoffs is in life.
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is quite apparent here. You are making baseless assumptions and ending up at incorrect conclusions.
To clarify, the 57HP gain that is claimed by the tuner is at the crank. I saw a gain of ~40HP at the wheels. On this particular dyno, the car had roughly a 30% loss between the crank and ground.
A 25% increase in power does not mean a 25% increase in force. The forces acting on the engine internals are a result how fast you spin them. You can make 1 billion horsepower at a given rpm, and the engine is spinning exactly as fast as if it were making 1 horsepower at the same rpm.
You say my engine life is cut in half? That must mean Audi designed the engine to last somewhere around 4-500,000 miles. After 85,000 chipped miles, 100,000 total, the engine is still perfectly to spec. Go figure. Oddly enough, this same engine is available in the TT making 225HP. Is the expected life of that motor 29% of mine when it was stock? It seems to me like you actually have very very very little knowledge of what is actually going on, and pulled your "life equation" out of your you-know-what. Sorry for the flame, it is just frustrating when someone acts like an expert but clearly knows very little.
Actually, that article is very wrong
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The truth is that turbocharged cars can benefit greatly from aftermarket ECUs, or "chipped" stock ECUs. There are lots of options out there, and gains of 80HP just from a chip are not unheard.
I have verified these claims myself using my own car and the local 4WD dyno. In the case of my car, the tuner claimed a 57 crank HP improvement, and an extra 93ftlbs (also measured at the crank). What I found is that these numbers are, in fact, conservative. I have the dyno plots on my computer and would be more than happy to post them if any critics or skeptics want to be shot down.
Slashdot Mirror
Just one additional thing to add, which many /. readers will find fascinating.
.02% of the "sissy version's" life. As the record shows, the engines lasted a heck of a lot longer than that.
In the 1980s, BMW (and everyone else) was using turbo-charged engines in their Formula One cars. For those who are not familiar with it, F1 is the be-all and end-all of racing technology. BMW's engines were making around 1500HP (out of only 1.5liters) in qualifying trim. That's pretty impressive, but do you know what is even more impressive? The engine blocks that BMW was using were taken directly off the production line and were used, unmodifed. Equipped in a production car, those engines using those blocks were producing under 100HP.
So, let's take your life equation and apply it to this. With a 1400% increase in output, that would mean the expected engine life is (1/15)^3, or
Please, shut the fuck up. I'm tired of snide little remarks from anonymous faggots on this site whose sole purpose in life should be wiping the shit off my ass because they have no better reason for being alive than to act like little cocksuckers.
John, you present a convincing argument. I thought I could poke holes in it, or at least maybe find some obscure example which did not seem to fit, but after consulting my various engineering texts and skimming a couple of the SAE papers I've written, I came up empty handed. Congratulations on a job well done.
Actually, John, while you are not completely wrong you are indeed very close.
/.ers cant to read. Suffice it to say that as a result of running more advanced spark timing I must now run at least 91octane fuel.
/.ers interest.
What my particular chip does is run more boost, more timing, and squirt more fuel. It does not increase the wastegate pressure relief - it controls it completely. What does this complete control do for me, the driver? As a start, it improves throttle response, because when I floor the gas, it is best to leave the wastegate open momentarily and then flutter it, before holding it closed.
I could get into the technical details of what increasing the timing and fuel does, but that is outside of what most
The question on everyone else's mind is probably: Why did Audi not tune the car like this from the factory? The obvious answer is because of things like the fact that I now must run 91 octane fuel. The average driver does some really really horrible things to his car, and as a result, most manufacturers "dumb down" their cars to prevent failures due to this. That is the primary reason. A second reason is that the car, with the base-level engine and a $300 upgrade, is now significantly faster than the model with the $4000 more expensive engine. The rest of the reasons are primarily to do with protecting the car from your run of the mill idiot, and are outside the scope of the average
As to your claim of my killing my torque band, that, too, is baseless and incorrect. If you wish to be 0wnt, and I mean "caught with your pants down and your head all the way up your hoo-hoo 0wnt," direct me to a free hot-linkable image host and I will post the dyno charts.
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is quite apparent here. You are making baseless assumptions and ending up at incorrect conclusions. To clarify, the 57HP gain that is claimed by the tuner is at the crank. I saw a gain of ~40HP at the wheels. On this particular dyno, the car had roughly a 30% loss between the crank and ground. A 25% increase in power does not mean a 25% increase in force. The forces acting on the engine internals are a result how fast you spin them. You can make 1 billion horsepower at a given rpm, and the engine is spinning exactly as fast as if it were making 1 horsepower at the same rpm. You say my engine life is cut in half? That must mean Audi designed the engine to last somewhere around 4-500,000 miles. After 85,000 chipped miles, 100,000 total, the engine is still perfectly to spec. Go figure. Oddly enough, this same engine is available in the TT making 225HP. Is the expected life of that motor 29% of mine when it was stock? It seems to me like you actually have very very very little knowledge of what is actually going on, and pulled your "life equation" out of your you-know-what. Sorry for the flame, it is just frustrating when someone acts like an expert but clearly knows very little.
The truth is that turbocharged cars can benefit greatly from aftermarket ECUs, or "chipped" stock ECUs. There are lots of options out there, and gains of 80HP just from a chip are not unheard.
I have verified these claims myself using my own car and the local 4WD dyno. In the case of my car, the tuner claimed a 57 crank HP improvement, and an extra 93ftlbs (also measured at the crank). What I found is that these numbers are, in fact, conservative. I have the dyno plots on my computer and would be more than happy to post them if any critics or skeptics want to be shot down.